Comparison of hand contamination rates and environmental contamination levels between two different glove removal methods and distances

• Published in: American journal of infection control 2011-03, Vol.39 (2), p.104-111
• Main Authors: Lai, Joanna Y.F., MS, Guo, Y.P., PhD, Or, Peggy P.L., MS, Li, Yi, PhD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Biological and medical sciences; Comparative analysis; Contamination; Disease control; Environmental Pollution - prevention & control; Environmental Pollution - statistics & numerical data; Epidemiology. Vaccinations; Equipment Contamination; Female; Fluorescent Dyes; fluorescent stain; General aspects; glove doffing; Gloves; Gloves, Protective; Hand; Hands; Health care worker; Health Personnel; Humans; Infection Control; Infection Control - methods; Infectious Disease; Infectious diseases; Major; Male; Medical personnel; Medical sciences; Medical Waste Disposal - methods; Middle Aged; Studies; Surgical apparatus & instruments; training and supervision; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0196-6553; 1527-3296
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2010.06.007

Background Gloves are a necessary contact precaution to prevent transmission of infectious pathogens that spread by direct or indirect contact with an infected person or a contaminated environment. This article reports a study investigating hand and environmental contamination levels when health care workers (HCWs) followed two different methods of removing gloves at two distances from the rubbish bin. Methods Fifty HCWs performed a personal or causal glove removal method (pretest) and a Centers for Disease Control (CDC)-recommended glove removal method (posttest) at distances of 2 feet and 3 feet from the rubbish bin after the application of fluorescent solution (the simulated contaminant) onto their gloved hands. Results The incidence of the small patch of fluorescent stain (1 cm2 ) on the front of the doffed gloves and on the cover of the rubbish bin was significantly lower at 3 feet than at 2 feet. Health care assistants had significantly higher levels of contamination than other HCWs in the pretest but not in the posttest. There was no significant difference in hand contamination rate between pretest and posttest based on distance from the rubbish bin and type of HCW. Conclusion The impact of the glove removal procedure and the distance to the bin in which used gloves are discarded should be taken into consideration on a daily basis, along with the supervision of infection control measures by minor staff.